Ivan Lewis: What women and fathers tell us they want from the whole experience of antenatal care, postnatal care and the actual birth is choice. That choice is homebirth, or the opportunity to have the birth at a maternity-led unit or a consultant-led unit. What is important in every community is that we make a reality of that choice for home-based birth, midwife-led birth and consultant-led birth. When we produce our plan to deliver our commitment that by 2009 every parent in every community will have access to that choice, the hon. Gentleman will finally understand that we are responding to what parents tell us they want.

David Hanson: Again, I thought that I had put that on the record. Obviously, such matters need repeating. Nothing has changed on the triple lock, which is in place. However, the Secretary of State wants to consider ways in which we can encourage the devolution of policing by providing for an extra model. In the event of a further model proving unacceptable, the Secretary of State will retain the right to impose the model if that is required to break the log jam. I emphasise that nothing interferes with the triple lock in the context of what we are discussing today.
	The provisions are the outcome of a long-standing commitment to devolve policing and justice functions. We have always made it clear that we will not do that until the time is right, which is when the safeguards that I outlined have been established. Devolution cannot happen until the Assembly passes a resolution, with a cross-community vote requesting it. I put that on the record and hope that it satisfies the hon. Lady. The Northern Ireland parties in the Assembly must decide when the time is right and Parliament must agree.

David Hanson: I hope that I can help the hon. Gentleman. The Government made it clear in the discussion document that was published a year ago that they intend the functions to transfer, but only when justice functions generally are transferred. That remains the Government's position and I hope that that satisfies him.
	The group also contains amendments tabled by members of the Social Democratic and Labour party. Those amendments aim to circumvent the safeguards and allow the Government to impose the devolution of policing and justice matters without the Northern Ireland Assembly's support and agreement. I am afraid that I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle—as I have done on several occasions in the past two years—that I do not agree with his proposal. It would go against the spirit of the Good Friday agreement and I cannot therefore support it. Not only that, but new clause 2 would require responsibility for policing and justice to be given to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, instead of being left to the Assembly's discretion.
	As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are reluctant to impose a model on the Assembly because we want the Assembly to determine the model. Imposing a model that appears to command little support in the Assembly and that it and the Committee on the Preparation of Government have effectively rejected cannot be right. The Secretary of State has made it clear through new clause 5 that the Government's view is that if a model must be imposed on the Assembly, it should be the new one, not one of the previous ones. I reluctantly have to say to my hon. Friend—we are usually in common cause—that I cannot support his new clause and I ask him to withdraw it.
	As to new clause 4— [Interruption.] I am glad to see that I am getting at least some support from certain parts of the House. It is always nice to have the support of one's fellows. New clause 4 was also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle. It is designed to overturn plans announced by the Government on 24 February that responsibility for national security and intelligence work in Northern Ireland will transfer from the police to the Security Service later this year. You will expect me to say this, Mr. Speaker, but I believe that the Government's plans are sound, sensible and logical.
	Under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, national security is an accepted matter for which the Secretary of State is responsible and it cannot be devolved. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), dealt extensively with this matter in Committee and elsewhere. The change will take place later this year to align operational arrangements with the political and constitutional responsibilities, which will facilitate the devolution of policing and justice in due course. The change is one of the welcoming, normalising measures that are coming before the House to bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom, mirroring the relationship between the Security Service and the police across the UK as a whole.
	Operationally, the change will make for a consistent and co-ordinated response across the UK to the threat from terrorism in all its forms. I am sure that hon. Members would welcome that, not just in respect of the historical terrorism that has been inflicted on Northern Ireland, but regarding the wider potential threats that exist against the UK. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle, who opposes the change, fears that it risks damaging the progress made on policing reform post-Patten, and he would probably also raise the issue of policing accountability. I hope that I can assure him that we are taking a sound, logical step and that those fears are misguided. We believe that the objectives that we seek will bring security for the people of Northern Ireland.
	In conclusion, I commend new clause 5. I emphasise that it is designed simply to widen the choice for the Assembly and as a last resort for the Secretary of State. I say again that the triple lock remains in place. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle will, after speaking to his new clauses on national security and other matters, withdraw them. The Committee and the House can consider these matters fully.

Mark Durkan: The date of May 2008 is in the St. Andrew's agreement. We accept the date and we want to give it real meaning. It is an issue, because unless we create more certainty around it, uncertainty and confusion will grow around Sinn Fein's position on policing. The process can do without that. More confidence would be created if we had certainty about a date for devolution of justice and policing, which would allow or force Sinn Fein to commence its full involvement in policing. That could create more confidence, and we would then have achieved agreement and sufficient confidence before May 2008 to ensure that there is agreement in the Assembly. The purpose of our clause is to ensure that parties have every incentive and we have the best circumstances before May 2008.
	New clause 4 deals with another matter of deep concern to the SDLP. In 2005, the Government announced that primacy in intelligence policing in Northern Ireland would pass from the PSNI to MI5. That is due to happen in October and it was re-confirmed, as the Minister suggested, in a discussion paper on the devolution of justice launched last February.
	The Government argue that after the devolution of justice a devolved Minister for justice from a particular party could not receive briefings on subversive activity. Nobody is really arguing for that. The issue of who gets intelligence information—the devolved Minister for justice or the Secretary of State, if it is to do with national security—is a separate issue from that of who has primary responsibility for gathering the intelligence. The SDLP argues that the PSNI should continue to have primacy in intelligence gathering, including on subversive activity, as provided by Patten. The Government want to give it to MI5.
	Patten envisaged that on matters of national security the Chief Constable would report not to the devolved Minister for justice but to the Secretary of State. We accepted that, but Patten also envisaged that the Chief Constable would do the reporting, not MI5. The Government's proposals are a departure from Patten.
	I shall explain why the change is so wrong. First, the PSNI has undergone the Patten reforms, whereas MI5 has not. We cannot ask how many people work for MI5, including how many of them are Catholics or Protestants. It will not tell us. We are not allowed to know anything about the organisation, but we are asked to have confidence in it. It is not only nationalists who should have a basic problem with that. The enlarged role for MI5 could destabilise the new beginning to policing.
	Secondly, organised crime and subversive activity have gone hand in hand in Northern Ireland, which is why one organisation—the PSNI—should be in the lead when it comes to monitoring and tackling them. Giving any of that responsibility to MI5 carries the huge risk that it will do what it and the RUC's special branch did in the past—hog intelligence for its own reasons and not share it with the police officers responsible for combating and pursuing those crimes and for initiating prosecutions. As a result of that, the guilty got away with murder and other crimes, so we have cause to be concerned about the implications of passing that responsibility to MI5. The House need look only at what happened with the Omagh bombing: it took MI5 seven years to pass on a warning, which the PSNI received only last year.
	Thirdly, many welcome changes in matters such as informer handling and intelligence sharing in the PSNI have stemmed from the Patten report and the Stevens report into collusion, and from the Omagh report and the review subsequently commissioned by the Northern Ireland Policing Board. Taking away primacy in intelligence policing undermines those successful and important changes. Indeed, no one has any idea whether the safeguards recommended by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland in her very significant McCord report will apply equally to MI5. The Chief Constable has said that they will apply to the PSNI, and that is welcome, but will that still be the case when the change to primacy in intelligence policing is introduced? There is a clear danger of the guarantees and protections in Patten being diminished or eroded.
	Fourthly, the PSNI is accountable to the Policing Board and the police ombudsman for any human rights abuses perpetrated by its officers. There are structures that ensure that nationalists, Unionists and everyone else may have growing confidence that concerns or complaints about the PSNI will be dealt with, but that is not the case with MI5. The Government have continually resisted calls for MI5 officers in the north to be subject to the police ombudsman.
	Fifthly, the Patten report made it explicit that
	"the police service must remain equipped to detect and deal with terrorist activity, and for this they will need good intelligence capability."
	That key recommendation will be undermined or compromised if MI5 takes over primacy in intelligence policing. Again, the Omagh bombing gives an example of what can go wrong. Sam Kincaid has told the Omagh families that MI5 had intelligence that there was going to be an attack on Omagh, but that it did not pass it on. When pressed on the matter, Chief Constable Hugh Orde said MI5 held nothing back from the investigation into the bombing, but he did not deny Sam Kincaid's allegation that MI5 did not pass on information before the bombing. We can expect such problems to arise more often if MI5 takes primacy in intelligence gathering, and the potential consequences are serious.
	The question of MI5's future in Northern Ireland has implications for the conduct of the devolution of justice and policing. The British Government will determine what is meant by the phrase "national security" and the scope of the work done by the intelligence services, so the role given to MI5 could grow. Moreover, if it has primacy in intelligence policing, its work will be outside the purview of the devolved Administration and Assembly. In the Second Reading debate on 13 December 2006, the Secretary of State told us that the Bill would give the Director of Public Prosecutions powers to issue certificates to ensure that there would be no jury trials, and that he could do so on the basis of information from the security services—MI5.
	The Bill also includes provisions that would permanently recycle special powers for the police and the Army that were previously only temporary during the worst of the troubles. The legislation will remain under the control of the House and the Secretary of State; it will not be controlled by the devolved Assembly. A devolved Minister for justice could receive representations from defendants facing trial in courts funded and administered by the court service that serves the devolved Ministry stating that they had not been allowed a jury trial and had been given no reasons why. The devolved Minister would be a mere spectator in a hopeless and helpless situation. He would be unable to amend or restrict the special powers of the police—although we do not say that the Minister should interfere in the exercise of police powers; unlike others, we do not believe that Ministers should boss the police.
	Politicians should not boss the police and we must ensure that policing in Northern Ireland is not seen as the accessory of partisan controls or interests. That is why the Patten controls are important. However, we do not want devolved Ministers, a devolved Assembly and its Committee left in a completely hopeless and powerless state, while significant activities that impinge on policing and justice, and which they have no power to amend, advise or question, take place beyond their control. That raises fundamental credibility issues about the future of the devolution of justice and policing. That is not what the Social Democratic and Labour party means by the devolution and justice and policing, and I should be surprised if it is what Sinn Fein means when it says that it wants to ensure that there is no lingering British control or interference in relation to justice and policing. The Bill and other measures proposed by the Government, including MI5, provide for just such ongoing control by the "securocrats" and other interests.

Peter Robinson: I am not interpreting the legislation; I am indicating exactly what is in it. It is the hon. Gentleman who is misinterpreting the legislation, because it does not provide any functions for the Department. That is the key issue.
	In the St. Andrews agreement, the Government clearly set down their belief that devolution of policing and justice powers could occur by May 2008. The Government are of course entitled to their view on that matter, but none of the parties was required to sign up to that date at St. Andrews. Had they been so required, the Minister would have got the same answer on that issue as the party gives on the issue of devolution itself. We are a party that is condition led, not calendar led.
	Throughout the process, it has been at the heart of the Democratic Unionist party's strategy that we will not allow ourselves to be forced by deadlines to do things that would be wrong owing to the conditions on the ground. That must be the position of any sensible party if we are to have the stable and lasting devolution of any powers, including policing and justice powers.
	The Minister will know that the DUP is a party that believes in devolution of the fullest possible kind. It thus believes that policing and justice powers should be devolved in the right circumstances and at the right time. He knows that that is our position because it was the position that we advanced to the Government back in 2004 when we considered matters that led to the Government's comprehensive agreement. We made it clear that we were working towards the devolution of policing and justice powers. That is the endeavour of the DUP. I know that that is also the endeavour of the Government, and I hear that it is the endeavour of the Social Democratic and Labour party. However, the people who must build confidence so that policing and justice powers can be devolved in Northern Ireland are members of Sinn Fein. The DUP supports the police. The SDLP has taken up membership of the Policing Board and has publicly indicated its support for the police. No one questions the Government's support for the police. The party that must prove itself to the people of Northern Ireland is, of course, Sinn Fein.
	The DUP believes that the necessary community confidence must be in place before the powers are devolved to Northern Ireland. Whatever dates the Minister might put forward, the key point must be whether the community is confident that such powers should be devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Among the criteria to consider at that stage would be whether the Assembly was sufficiently stable to have such sensitive powers devolved to it, and whether the model under which the powers would operate was workable and durable. We would also have to consider whether the Minister who would exercise the powers would have the support and confidence not only of one section of the community, but of the community as a whole.
	When taking a decision on whether policing and justice powers should be devolved, any sensible democrat in the Assembly will make a judgment by considering such matters. They will not simply look at a calendar and say, "Ah, this is the day on which devolution should take place," but will consider sensibly whether the circumstances on the ground are such that the powers can be safely devolved to Northern Ireland. That is the only judgment that a sensible politician would make.
	I said that one of the criteria to consider will be whether the Assembly is sufficiently stable. I say to the Minister that the date of May 2008 would be at the earliest end of the tolerance of most people's judgment of when the Assembly would be sufficiently bedded in and consolidated to allow such powers to be devolved. It is essential that Assembly Members deal with day-to-day politics and ensure that things are bedded in before the most sensitive and controversial powers are devolved to the Assembly.
	Policing and justice powers are more controversial than health, education and other issues because they affect people's lives: their safety, security and human rights. They relate to matters that touch every citizen in the country, every day. That is why such devolution cannot simply be forced by the calendar, and why great care must be taken when devolving such powers—and I say that as someone who wants the maximum number of powers, including the maximum number of policing and justice powers, to be devolved to Northern Ireland.
	The second criterion that I mentioned was the model. The Minister was chided by the hon. Member for Foyle because this is the fifth model to be thrown out. I am not a betting man, but if I were, I would take a bet that it will not be the last model. Before too long, someone will return to the House with new legislation under which we will address the matter again. That is why I think that, to some extent, we are wasting our time dealing with this matter today. This will not be the last word on legislative arrangements for policing and justice powers being devolved in Northern Ireland. However, I recognise that the Government want to get things moving, so they have taken this step.
	Some of my colleagues and I were heavily criticised. We irritated the Secretary of State—I know he was irritated because he told me so—with some of our remarks about the devolution of policing and justice. I said that, in the circumstances that then prevailed, where Sinn Fein was the largest party on the nationalist side and we were discussing a d'Hondt style of government, I could not imagine that in my lifetime there would be the community confidence in Sinn Fein that was necessary for those powers to be devolved. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) was attacked because he said that he could not see that happening in his political lifetime. My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim used a metaphor of distance rather than time, saying that it was light years away. Whether one uses the language of time or of distance, the message from all three of us was that there was no immediate prospect of the community in Northern Ireland saying that it would be a good idea for policing and justice powers to be devolved if Sinn Fein were getting their hands on the post of Minister with responsibility for policing and justice.
	I speak for myself and I believe I speak for my colleagues. None of us made those remarks because we wanted to be belligerent or as a threat. None of those remarks were made in the House or outside because that is what we wanted to happen. It was a clear analysis of what we believed the community's position to be in the light of a campaign that has gone on for decades, in which the very people who will be put in charge of policing and justice were blowing up courts and killing policemen. That is the reality.
	The Minister can put whatever dates he likes on a calendar, but that will not change the minds of people in Northern Ireland, who ask whether it is sensible for somebody who blew up the Old Bailey and tried to blow up Scotland Yard to be appointed Minister for policing and justice? It does not take too long to consider that proposition. The Minister knows that I am talking about Gerry Kelly, the policing and justice spokesman of Sinn Fein. It does not require much thought to realise that that may not be such a good idea.
	We made those comments not to be difficult, but to bring some reality to the issue and to let the Government know exactly what they were proposing in Northern Ireland and what the reaction would be in the community. The Democratic Unionist party recognised the difficulty and sought to help the Government resolve the issue. The officers of the Democratic Unionist party put forward a proposal in the Sub-group on the programme for government, and the proposal was unanimously endorsed by our officer corps.
	We suggested that if the difficulty was that the community could not have confidence in a particular party, we should have a system whereby the Minister was elected by the Assembly on a cross-community vote, so only somebody who had the confidence of the community would have the post. Let us set a weighted majority and ensure that there is a high degree of support. Rather than a Unionist candidate supported by a few nationalists, or a nationalist supported by a few Unionists here and there, clear overall support from both communities would be required for the Minister to be acceptable.
	To some extent, that has been the basis for the Government's model. They have not gone as far as we did. We required a 70 per cent. vote and a number of other conditions, but at least the Government have recognised that it is possible for policing and justice powers to be devolved without the post being in the hands of Sinn Fein. Let us leave parties out of it altogether. The only person who is excluded under the Government's system is somebody who cannot achieve the cross-community support that is necessary. That is the reality. My colleagues and I have made it clear that there are some people whom we cannot see as having that necessary support. I suspect that if I was to put myself forward for that position, I might not get the cross-community support that was necessary either. But who knows what the future might hold? However, the reality is that the position could be filled only if there was cross-community support.
	5.15 pm
	There is a further problem. First of all, as has been said, not all policing and justice powers would reside automatically in a policing and justice Department. There are some residual powers in the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister. It would be sensible, if and when the circumstances come around and we deal with the minutiae of the issue, for all the policing and justice powers to be put into the one Department, not spread about.
	The other issue is that under this—I will put it in the most pleasant way that I can—peculiar system of government, there would be an ability on the part of any three Ministers to call in any issue dealt with by another Minister for a vote within the Executive. We are dealing in policing and justice with matters that, as I have said, are particularly sensitive. Some will have legal implications. It is clear that there will have to be procedures, arrangements, protocols—call them what one will—to ensure that there is some ring-fencing of the role of that Department because of the nature of the task before it. All those issues are essential and need to be dealt with before we can finally take decisions on the future of policing and justice in Northern Ireland.

Peter Robinson: The hon. Gentleman will have recognised the words that he has quoted—I have been in this House for some 28 years, and I have seen them dozens of times. The Secretary of State cannot use the powers in the Bill to take powers that go well beyond the scope of the legislation. The hon. Gentleman is arguing that the consequential powers allow the Secretary of State to do whatever he wants, provided that it falls loosely under the heading of policing of justice. Of course, the Secretary of State cannot do that, and the approach must be consistent with the scope of the legislation.

Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman is of course correct—we did discuss this issue in Committee, and he has come back with another valiant attempt. I have considered very carefully his amendment and the arguments that he has put forward. We have said throughout consideration of the Bill that we need to define "associate" in order to cover cases where an individual might be motivated by their close relationship with another person, and the Bill specifies, for example, the relationship of husband and wife.
	The example we discussed in Committee was that of a father and son. Say the father was a prominent member of a proscribed organisation and his son was prosecuted for a certain offence. Evidence could be produced that the father intended to bully the juror to get the son off. We need to ensure that the legislation covers such examples, and I know that the hon. Gentleman accepts that.
	I accepted in Committee that the terms "friend" and "relative" could indicate a close relationship, but they could also reflect a more distant relationship. I contend that we should leave it to the DPP to make a judgment about what is relevant in any given case. To some extent it is a subjective test. We trust the DPP to make the judgment.
	The amendment would, at best, simply replicate the provision in the Bill in clause 1(10)(d) and (e). At worst, instead of tightening the definition as the hon. Gentleman intends, it might widen it. I assume that he would not want that.

Alan Reid: Amendment No. 5 would allow the final decision about whether a trial is to proceed in front of a jury or in front of a judge to be taken by the judge, not by the DPP as the Bill provides. In Committee we tabled amendments to ensure that the decision to issue a certificate for a non-jury trial would be taken by a court, not by the DPP. The Government's response was that the DPP would be privy to information that the police or national security had brought to bear, and that having an open judicial system would risk information being exposed to the other party, so as to allow for cross-examination, and that could put witnesses or informants at risk.
	Our preference is for some form of judicial control over the mode of trial. The decision should not be taken by the DPP on his or her own. However, we have taken the Government's concerns into account and have therefore tabled amendment No. 5 to allow the final decision to be taken by the judge. The procedure would be for the DPP to make the initial certificate of application for a trial without a jury. Under the Bill, that has to be lodged with the court before the arraignment.
	The defendant would then be notified that such a certificate had been issued by the DPP, and he would have the opportunity to make written representations to the judge. On the basis of the representations made by the DPP and the defendant, the judge would be able to decide to accept or reject the certificate from the DPP. That would allow a judicial element to come into the determination of the mode of trial, yet there would be no risk of the names of witnesses or informers becoming known. As a result, they would not be subject to intimidation, and I think that that answers the Government's objections to the proposal.
	Amendment No. 15 would delete clause 7, which prevents the DPP's decision from being challenged in court unless certain very severe circumstances apply. In the original Bill, only dishonesty and bad faith on the part of the DPP would have allowed his decision to be challenged. To those conditions, Government amendment No 30 in this group adds "other exceptional circumstances"—a fairly vague phrase, but still a very high hurdle. We believe that the hurdles set out in Government amendment No. 30 are far too high for the defendant to negotiate.
	We are completely opposed to clause 7. Not only does the Bill contain no provision for an appeal against a decision to hold a trial without a jury, but it expressly prohibits an appeal unless the high hurdles that I have described already can be surmounted. It is completely wrong that the DPP can issue a certificate for a trial to be conducted without a jury when the defendant has no way to make representations to the DPP, or to appeal the decision.
	A similar problem arose during the consideration of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Bill in 2004. Clause 11 of that Bill inserted a new section 108 into the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, cutting off all appeals to, and judicial review by, the ordinary courts in respect of immigration matters, and excluding habeas corpus applications in immigration cases. At the time, the Joint Committee on Human Rights issued what can only be described as a damning report on that provision. The Committee stated that it regarded to proposed restriction
	"as being inherently objectionable as an attack on an important element of the scheme for protecting Convention rights in the United Kingdom."
	Despite the Government's attempts to assuage its concerns, the Committee issued a second report that stated that
	"it could strongly be argued that the ouster of judicial review of tribunal decisions contemplated by clause 11 has not been justified by any argument advanced by the Government. There is a real danger that this would violate the rule of law in breach of international law, the Human Rights Act 1988, and the fundamental principles of our common law."
	For me, the provisions of clause 7 are equally objectionable. The Government are even having to suspend the operation of the Human Rights Act to implement the clause, and that is completely unjustifiable. The Government have been able to advance no arguments to justify what amounts to an attack on people's human rights.
	We are fundamentally opposed to clause 7, and hope that even at this late stage, the Government will take heed of the human rights objections to it. However, if they insist on retaining it, I give notice that we will vote against the Bill on Third Reading.

Mark Durkan: We are now dealing with one of the most draconian elements in the Bill, and I support what the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) said about amendment No. 15. It would remove clause 7, which prevents any legal challenge whatsoever to the DPP's decision to issue a certificate to the effect that that a defendant should be tried without a jury.
	The Bill, unlike the Criminal Justice Act 2003, will not require the DPP to apply in court to have a case tried without a jury, but clause 7 goes further. It allows the DPP alone to decide that a trial should be held without a jury, and it also provides that that decision cannot be challenged by judicial review. That runs contrary to the terms of the Government's consultation paper for the Bill, in which it was stated that, like other administrative decisions, the DPP's decision would be judicially reviewable.
	That is what the public were told, and what the Government believed was a reasonable and proper administrative model for the provision of non-jury trials. However, the Bill is entirely different. It also runs counter to the recommendations that the Government received from Lord Carlile, who believed that, although the Bill should contain some provisions for non-jury trials, the decision by the DPP should be judicially reviewable.
	There are two lessons for those of us who are told that Lord Carlile will be a great reassurance in these matters, as he will be the one reviewing the future role of MI5. First, those of us who do not agree with non-jury trials can question Lord Carlile's judgment in this matter; and secondly, it is clear that the Government have overturned one of his key conditions—that the DPP's decision should be judicially reviewable. For both those reasons, therefore, we find it difficult to accept that Lord Carlile will be able to reassure us about the conduct of MI5.
	In Committee, the Government said that they were merely trying to use clause 7 to reproduce the result of the Shuker case, when it was stated that courts should be "reluctant to intrude" on any decision made by the DPP to deschedule. This Bill gives the DPP the unchallengeable power to issue a certificate to the effect that a trial should not have a jury. That decision cannot be challenged in court, or even questioned by the court itself. The Secretary of State said in the Second Reading debate of 13 December that a judge might ask the DPP privately about the matter, but that seems rather unusual.
	The Government say that clause 7 is intended to deal with the lessons of the Shuker case, but we believe that it goes much further than that. The Shuker case established that courts should be "reluctant to intrude" on the DPP's decision in respect of non-jury trials, so why are the Government legislating to prevent them even from looking in at the door or the window? Government amendments Nos. 29 to 31 represent a slight movement in that respect, allowing the courts to step in when there is bad faith or "other exceptional circumstances".
	However, in circumstances when, as the Minister told us in Committee, there is no information on the certificate—so we shall not know which conditions the DPP felt were satisfied and neither the defendant nor the lawyer will know the grounds on which it was issued—it is hard to know how we could mount a challenge on grounds of dishonesty, bad faith or an error in law. It would be impossible for anyone to mount a significant challenge when no information was given. The change that the Government appear to offer in their amendments is a mere figment.
	The Government's proposals do not go anywhere near far enough. They do not deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute because they do nothing to mitigate the effect of subsection (3) of clause 7, which derogates from the Human Rights Act and thus from the European convention on human rights. It abandons the basic standards of decency that have been meant to apply throughout Europe for more than 50 years.
	It is extraordinary that the Government are doing that in Northern Ireland, when the security situation is improving dramatically. Earlier, Opposition Members said that we needed to look to the future and to take account of al-Qaeda and wider terrorist threats, but they should remember that the Bill's provisions apply only to prescribed organisations dealing with the affairs of Northern Ireland; they will not extend to al-Qaeda or anyone else. The Government keep telling us how things are improving in Northern Ireland and that there is such great confidence that the previous special provisions are being repealed, so how can they justify such provisions in the Bill? That is why I am proud to argue that clause 7 should be deleted.

Sammy Wilson: The hon. Gentleman totally misunderstands or deliberately seeks to misrepresent the point that is being made. The certificate will be issued on the basis of intelligence. How, for example, is it known that the defendant may well be a member of a paramilitary and that his associates intend to intimidate the jury? Very often that will become known as a result of intelligence, hence the input from the intelligence services into the decision whether to issue a certificate.
	If the decision to issue a certificate was open to judicial review, we can be sure, given that the decision was probably based on intelligence, that anybody facing such a certificate would immediately instruct his lawyers to apply to the court for judicial review. For what purpose? To try and find out what intelligence there was about him, where it came from and who provided the information.
	That is exactly the reason that the Government have given—and the soundest reason, because there are already examples of it—for not providing such an opportunity in the system for those who would seek to use the issuing of a certificate as a means of trawling to find out what the intelligence services know about them or the organisations with which they are associated. To me, that is a far greater threat than the possibility that someone may have to face a non-jury trial—a trial in which they will get a fair hearing anyway.

Eddie McGrady: The amendments would ensure that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission can carry out its functions properly, with due process and an ability to penetrate some of the darker matters that might arise during its investigations.
	On Second Reading, the Secretary of State stated that
	"the commission has welcomed the additional powers that"
	the Bill
	"provides. It asked for them and I am providing them, so of course it is pleased."—[ Official Report, 13 December 2006; Vol. 454, c. 904.]
	However, hon. Members who received a briefing from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission knows that it sets out the Commission's actual attitude and position. It states:
	"The Commission believes that the Bill has serious defects in terms of the protection of human rights. In some respects the Bill actually diminishes the Commission's current level of independence, and imposes new and onerous obligations."
	My colleagues and I tabled the amendments to try to tackle that problem.
	Amendment No. 17 deals with a simple concern. Clause 14 inserts a new section 69A into the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The amendment would prevent the Commission from compelling someone to give information that would be unlawfully disclosed
	"by virtue of an enactment".
	We disagree with that restriction. Although it is found in the Equality Act 2006, which covers England and Wales, it has no Northern Ireland equivalent. For example, such a restriction is not found in the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, so there is no similar restriction on the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland when conducting fair employment investigations. Section 44 of the 1998 Act gives Assembly Committees the power to call persons and papers. The Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 and associated legislation does not restrict the Policing Board in such a way in its inquiries. Those are but a few examples to illustrate the premise that such restrictions have no relevance—or should have none—in Northern Ireland.
	In all those cases, the key restriction, which is sufficient, is that a person cannot be compelled to produce documents that the High Court could not compel him to produce.
	That is more than sufficient to protect the public interest. By going further and preventing the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission from looking into anything that may not be given out under an enactment we could seriously impede the commission's investigative powers. Amendment No. 17 was tabled for those reasons.
	The purpose of amendment No. 18 is to strengthen the investigative powers of the HRC. Proposed new section 69A (5) would allow any person who had a notice served on him to produce papers or information or evidence to apply to the court and argue that it was "unnecessary" to do so, or the matter had already been sufficiently investigated or was "unreasonable" or beyond the terms of reference of the investigation.
	The HRC is already subject to judicial review and if it is doing something that is unreasonable or irrational, it can successfully be reviewed on those grounds in the same way as any other body with investigative powers in the north can be reviewed. The ability to go to the county court, which is unique to Northern Ireland, is therefore unnecessary. Furthermore, the question of whether the subject is sufficiently investigated is a matter for the commission to resolve with other bodies through agreed memorandums of understanding or protocols. Again, this provision, although it may appear in the Equality Act 2006, is unprecedented in Northern Ireland terms and undesirable in policy terms. Finally, in respect of amendment No. 18, if the NIHRC exceeds its terms of reference, that could also be a matter to be resolved by way of judicial review.
	As the Bill stands, the Director of Public Prosecutions cannot be the subject of a notice to hand over documents, information or papers, so amendment No. 20 is designed to address that issue. Given the controversy surrounding the handling of a number of cases by the DPP's office, it is only right that it can be investigated. There is a precedent for having inquiries into the DPP. For example, the Macpherson inquiry into the killing of Stephen Lawrence was able to investigate the DPP's office and the inquiry report found that it was essential to examine the DPP's handling of the case.
	By contrast, in Northern Ireland, there were serious allegations of police collusion surrounding the murder of Robert Hamill—and it was every bit as serious, if not more disturbing—yet so far the Government have not agreed that the DPP should be examined, despite the fact that the DPP office played a very important role in the overall handling of the case. Similar issues arise in respect of the first trial of Ulster Defence Association man Billy Stobie, who was found in possession of weapons, but after he threatened to reveal that he was an informer and warned his handlers that a man was about to be murdered using a weapon that he had supplied to the UDA, the charges were dropped without question. That should be investigated. Surely it must be subject to some sort of review. No explanation was ever given to the people involved for that particular decision. I refer, of course, to the murder of Pat Finucane.
	Given all those serious questions, it is only right and desirable that the Human Rights Commission should have the powers to investigate the Public Prosecution Service. The commission has needed to act in those controversial cases, but many victims of ordinary crime will feel that their rights have been violated at various times. Giving the HRC the power would be an important reassurance that the Public Prosecution Service has entered a new era of accountability, just as the Police Service of Northern Ireland now has a new dispensation and regime. That is why we propose amendment No. 20.
	I will not deal with amendments Nos. 19 or 21, 22 and 23, because I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and deal with those proposals. In general, however, I hope that all our amendments in this group will find some resonance with the Minister. If the Government do not feel able to respond immediately, I believe that these proposals are worthy of further consideration and I like to think that Ministers will take our comments into account, reflect on them and have a further review.

David Hanson: From my perspective, I hope that the Human Rights Commission will undertake what I term thematic examinations of human rights issues, which may involve visits to and investigations of places of detention. It may wish to have access to those places of detention once it has given a clear indication of the remit of the investigation and has agreed its time scale and format. I am not going to second-guess what the commission may wish to examine, but it could certainly look at human rights issues across government, and those may involve its having access to places of detention. I am trying to ensure that there is guidance to limit the investigatory powers so that the impact they have on the Northern Ireland Prison Service or places of detention is reasonable. The amendments would remove those limitations, but the limitations are fair and proper in the light of concerns expressed.
	With such wide-ranging powers come appropriate measures necessary to ensure that they are used properly. I think that we have got the measures on inspection of places of detention right. There is an appeals process, which will allow public authorities an opportunity to argue that an investigation is unreasonable or unnecessary. That is a proportionate measure, given the commission's powers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said, it parallels the processes that apply to the Commission for Equality and Human Rights in Great Britain.
	The appeals process is balanced by the opportunity that the commission will have to appeal to the courts if public authorities do not comply with its powers. The Bill creates new offences for failure to comply. Those are subject to fines of up to £5,000. I accept again that my hon. Friend does not think that that is a sufficient deterrent, but I think that it is appropriate punishment for that level of offence. There are also necessary restrictions on the commission which prevent it from compelling information that would prejudice national security or reveal the reasons for prosecution decisions.
	Amendment No. 17 would remove an important restriction. It ensures that recipients of notices are not caught by conflicting duties arising from different Acts. The potential for such conflict is real. Without the current restriction, it would be possible for a notice to require the production of information that is prohibited under, for example, the Data Protection Act 1998. There are conflicting legislative demands on individuals and organisations. Where Parliament has decided to restrict the disclosure of information in another Act, it is right that the Bill should recognise that fact.
	I touched on amendments Nos. 19 and 23 with regard to the maximum fine of £5,000. The level of punishment for that criminal offence is the same as is applied to those who have unreasonably failed to accede to a request for information from the Commission for Equality and Human Rights. As with the Great Britain commission, the sanction will prevent undue impediment to investigations.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Down spoke to amendment No. 20, which would remove the exemption for prosecution decisions. The exemption is necessary to ensure that decisions are taken independently on the merits of a case. It is well established that prosecution decisions are exempt from equality investigations. Clause 14(10) simply extends that existing situation to human rights investigations. The Public Prosecution Service will not be exempt from the commissioners' power to investigate, only the prosecution decisions accordingly.
	Amendment No. 21 would remove the exemption for national security issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle knows the answer to this, but I want to put the Government's view on the record. The national security exemptions in the Bill mirror provisions for Great Britain in the Equality Act 2006. It is important that national security interests are protected throughout the UK, and I am not willing to offer less protection for Northern Ireland than would be the case elsewhere in the UK.
	Amendment No. 22 challenges the notice to be given by the Human Rights Commission before any investigation into a place of detention can be undertaken. Again, we have put that in place so that there is an opportunity, first for the terms of reference for the investigation to be determined, and secondly, for the time scale and points of contact of that investigation to be agreed. However, once the 15-day notice is up and the terms of reference have been agreed, the commission may visit on a number of occasions without prior notice being given to those places of detention.
	As the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said, a number of bodies already have the power to take action immediately in the event of any concerns arising. For example, the prisons ombudsman, the criminal justice inspectorate, the prison monitoring boards, and indeed the police, can take action in those circumstances. We want to give the Human Rights Commission the opportunity to undertake thematic investigations into human rights issues. Those might require visits and access to a place of detention, but we have to ensure that that is not done if there is duplication with existing bodies, as the hon. Gentleman said, or if there is the potential for the investigation to disrupt the normal day-to-day work of the organisation that is being investigated.

David Hanson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I begin by thanking the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), for his sterling work in Committee. I managed to escape the Committee completely, but my hon. Friend, and the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice), who joined the Committee, worked hard. I also thank the Committee members who are present in the House today for their contributions to the Bill.
	The purpose of this Bill is straightforward. It ensures we can continue to build on justice and security for the people of Northern Ireland. It has been evident tonight in the debate that all hon. Members recognise that during the past two years there have been significant changes in Northern Ireland, and it is in that context that the Bill comes before the House tonight.
	The IRA's war has been declared over. The Independent Monitoring Commission has confirmed that the IRA's guns and bombs have gone, and that the organisation is winding down. The final arbiter, which is positive for democracy, is the ballot box not the bullet. Sinn Fein has bought into policing, as it has been asked to do; it has actively encouraged republicans to co-operate with the PSNI in solving crime, as it has been asked to do; and it has now encouraged young republicans to consider joining the PSNI, as it was asked to do.
	The pillar of support for policing is now in place, and the ard fheis a couple of weeks ago has brought a great new dawn for Northern Ireland. The pillar of power sharing must now go alongside that. We have got to the point for local politicians where the process outside office must end and the progress in office can begin on 26 March 2007.
	An election has been called for 7 March. We will have that election and an outcome to it, and I hope that an Executive will be formed on 26 March. No one should be in any doubt that it must be formed on 26 March. That is the date set down in the St Andrews agreement and that is the date in the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006. It will not change and, dare I say it, anyone who is basing their political strategy on pushing devolution beyond 26 March or trying to stop devolution altogether will find that they will be left behind. If the Executive is not formed on 26 March 2007, the Assembly will dissolve and the world will move on, and everything that has been done to date—I pay tribute to those Members who have worked hard to bring us to this point—will be lost as a result of that failure.
	The Northern Ireland of 2007 is not the Northern Ireland of 1977. We can now move forward to the day when the devolution process is complete. With that comes the potential real challenge of the devolution of policing and justice powers. The Government strongly believe that that should be achieved by May 2008. We have had a discussion today about the processes, and I do not need to repeat those comments now. But I believe strongly that all that has happened since the ard fheis a couple of weeks ago has reinforced the view that Sinn Fein can now deliver on policing and that we need to ensure that by May 2008 we look at the devolution of policing and justice powers.
	Provided that Sinn Fein continues to follow through on its clear commitment for policing and the courts, in the terms set out in paragraph 6 of the St Andrews agreement, and enshrined in the ministerial pledge of office that I hope Ministers will take on 26 March, there is no reason why the devolution of criminal justice powers cannot be devolved by May 2008.
	As hon. Members have said, particularly in Committee, a paramilitary threat still persists. It is clear that dissident republicans and some loyalists remain determined to undermine democracy, peace and stability. Organised criminals still seek to exploit businesses and generate funds for paramilitary organisations through illegal means. There is still illegal activity, and there is still a severe dissident threat. We cannot leave the people of Northern Ireland vulnerable to such activity and crime, which is the prime reason for the Bill tonight. The House should be in no doubt that the safety and security of the citizens of Northern Ireland remains the Government's first and overriding priority.
	The Bill ensures that justice can be delivered through a fair trial. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland took through Committee reforms to the jury system, which will help to minimise the risk of a perverse verdict. However—this has been discussed this evening—hon. Members know that the risk remains, due to paramilitary and, indeed, community pressure on jurors, of difficulties with juries. The new system of non-jury trial will help to counter that risk to the administration of justice based on a defined statutory test, which we have discussed this evening.
	The Bill will also ensure the security of the people of Northern Ireland. It provides the police and the military, which have had a historical role in supporting the security of the people of Northern Ireland and which will continue to provide protection to the people of Northern Ireland, with the necessary tools to do the job. Northern Ireland continues to be a unique operating environment for the police and the Army, and I am satisfied that the powers in the Bill are the minimum necessary for them to do their job properly.
	We have touched on the human rights issues, which are at the heart of the Government's vision for Northern Ireland as it moves forward to normalisation. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission plays a key role in protecting and promoting human rights, and the Bill and the measures that we discussed on Report include important provisions to ensure that the commission can carry out its duties more effectively.
	I want to thank all those involved in the proceedings of the Bill. I thank the officials, who have worked tirelessly over many months to bring the Bill to its state today, and the Under-Secretary, members of the Committee and hon. Members who spoke on Report. I thank those hon. Members who joined the debate in the House tonight and pay tribute to them for the constructive way in which they contributed to the debate.
	The Committee speedily deliberated on the Bill—members of the Committee required only half the allocated time to consider it. I am encouraged by that and believe it to be a testament to the necessity of this Bill in the context of a normalised Northern Ireland. The Government will reflect on some of the points raised on Report before the Bill enters another place, which will happen shortly. I am confident that the security normalisation programme, the recognition that Northern Ireland is changing for the better and the potential for the devolution of policing and criminal justice when Sinn Fein takes its roles on the Policing Board, which I hope that it will do in future, and works with the community to support policing in Northern Ireland will make the Bill a valuable addition for the people of Northern Ireland.
	I commend the Bill to the House.

David Wright: I appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening about housing growth in Telford. I will focus on two issues in particular—the range of initiatives in place to meet housing needs locally and the level of housing growth envisaged in the spatial strategy for Telford over the coming years.
	First, it would be appropriate to set the scene. Telford is of course no stranger to housing growth, as one of the most successful post-war new towns. It was designated as Dawley new town in 1963 and became Telford in 1968. The designation drew together a series of towns on the former east Shropshire coalfield, and it is fair to say that one of the strengths of Telford is that those smaller communities retain their own identity some 40 years later. I shall return to that point.
	There was massive housing growth in Telford in the 1960s and 1970s, with the creation of new communities. It started in areas such as Sutton Hill to the south of the town. Estates such as Brookside and Woodside were developed throughout the 1960s and 1970s. There was enormous housing growth, but looking back, we realise that there were often design problems that we are only just starting to recognise and rectify. The pattern of growth steadied in the 1980s and 1990s. However, many developments continued to be proposed for areas such as The Rock and Priorslee.
	We have now embarked on a significant housing growth strategy, which must be handled carefully and sensitively. Why do we need housing growth in the UK, and in Telford I particular? On a national basis, the Barker report indicates a significant gap between supply and rising demand for new homes. The UK has an ageing and growing population, to which the housing market is not responding. Over the last three decades of the 20th century, the number of households increased by 30 per cent., but new house building fell by 50 per cent. Household numbers in England will grow by 209,000 a year up to 2026, of which 72 per cent. will be single-person households.
	At the time of Kate Barker's report, only some 150,000 housing units a year were planned, so there is clearly a significant gap between the number of new homes being provided and the level of demand. That problem is emerging across Telford. Each year, some 5,000 households seek social housing in the borough of Telford and Wrekin and only about 1,000 of those households are rehoused. We are building some 100 social housing units, and that is not enough.
	The demand for housing is the top issue in my advice surgery. More than 50 per cent. of the cases at my fortnightly advice surgeries are housing related, with people looking for accommodation. The west midlands regional spatial strategy suggests that there will be demand for at least 19,689 additional units of accommodation in the constituencies of Telford and the Wrekin between 2001 and 2026. It is also worth noting that house prices locally are below the regional and national average. The Halifax bank says that the average in 2006 was £156, 658, which compares with the west midlands average of just over £170,000, and the UK average of £199,487. However, although house prices in Telford are below the west midlands and UK averages, it is important to note that wage rates are too, and that many people still struggle to get onto the housing ladder.
	So much for setting the scene, but what is in the pipeline for Telford's housing growth in the coming years? English Partnerships and the local council have worked together to bring forward some key sites for housing development. For example, a new community is planned in Lawley, with 3,300 new homes as well as offices, a primary school, shops, park land, bars and restaurants. The new name for the scheme is Ironstone, which reflects Telford's industrial heritage.
	The local community has been intensively involved in the consultation about the scheme's design. I know that because I live about two miles away, and have attended a number of consultation events set up by English Partnerships, whose performance in respect of consultation has been excellent. The scheme's affordable housing component will include 396 homes for social rent and 429 shared-ownership units. I am pleased to say that those homes will be pepper-potted throughout the development, using what I describe as a "tenure-blind" approach. The idea is that people walking down a street will not be able to tell which homes are for rent, for sale or for shared ownership. That will enable us to build a more cohesive and sustainable community in the longer term.
	The partners in the Ironstone scheme are Barretts, George Wimpey, Persimmon, the Beth Johnson housing association and Bourneville village trust. It is a model scheme, and one that should be built on in the years to come.
	Another site in Telford is Lightmoor. Owned by English Partnerships, it will be developed in the spirit of Birmingham's Bourneville village, the world-famous example of an urban community created by George Cadbury, the founder of the Bourneville village trust. The development proposals include up to 800 homes, 25 per cent. of which will be affordable housing owned by the trust.
	The Lightmoor development will be built around a green, and will include a range of facilities such as shops, a family pub and restaurant, a primary school and a lifelong learning centre. There will also be a community centre with facilities for indoor recreation, health care, multi-faith worship and indoor sports, as well as community management offices. It will be a really sustainable community in the long term. Bourneville has a tradition of building such communities, and the Lightmoor village scheme will be developed in a sensitive manner that respects the existing landscape.
	The Lightmoor scheme has been a difficult one to put together. There was public opposition initially, with many people thinking that the development should not go ahead because of the field pattern in the area, but a compromise has been achieved. A large area of open space to the south of the site has been saved, and the community being developed will be sustainable. I have visited the first phase of the development and can say that the design standards are superb. The approach that has been adopted in Lightmoor should be expanded across the whole town.
	Schemes such as those at Lawley and Lightmoor, and at the millennium community at Ketley in the Wrekin constituency, provide a benchmark for the design and quality of future housing growth. Alongside those new developments, we need high-quality new housing to form a key element of estate regeneration projects. For example, the new housing in areas such as Woodside is a major component of regeneration activity, providing a mix of accommodation for older people and young families. In fact, when we put the scheme together, people in Woodside were worried that the existing accommodation for older people would not be replaced. However, we have delivered on our commitment to put a brand new sheltered housing scheme on that site, in partnership with Wrekin Housing Trust. When we give communities specific commitments about the type of housing that will be built in their areas and deliver them, people tend to support activity.
	I was pleased when the Government announced in October 2006 that Telford would be one of 29 new growth points, and look forward to hearing in more detail from the Minister how that will work in practice. At present, we are building about 700 new homes a year in Telford and Wrekin, but it is acknowledged that we need more homes throughout the region, especially in Telford where there is potential for growth, so my second point is about how to tackle the spatial strategy for the west midlands and for Telford. Three options are proposed in the west midlands regional spatial strategy, which is out for consultation. Option 1 would deliver the existing agreed targets for housing, which would result in 24,000 new homes in Telford and Wrekin between 2001 and 2026—about 960 homes a year. Option 2 proposes 30,000 new homes between 2001 and 2026, which is 1,200 a year, while Option 3 is for 36,000 homes—1,440 a year.
	In my view, we should look at the middle way—I am sure the House will agree that is very new Labour of me—at a figure of about 30,000, while acknowledging that we will carry a significant share of the regional housing growth figures. As I said earlier, Telford is used to housing growth; if it is handled carefully and sensitively in consultation with the community, there is no opposition. That is how we developed the schemes at Lawley and Lightmoor, and I hope that we can have positive dialogue with communities about continuing housing growth over the coming years.
	In the past, sustainable communities have not been developed. Schemes such as Priorslee and The Rock were built in the 1980s and 1990s. I live on The Rock, which is a large estate with a large range of facilities, including a post box, a public telephone kiosk and about three bus stops. It is a commuter estate. People travel to work by car, often down the motorway to Birmingham, and home again. There are no local shops, pubs or facilities. We have to get such developments right in the future, as we are starting to do in the schemes that I mentioned earlier, but the car-commuter estate where I live is unsustainable. We need to learn from the failures of the 1980s and build more facilities in communities to make them sustainable.
	One of the key achievements in the growth of Telford has been retention of the character of communities such Oakengates, Dawley and Madeley, and that must be a factor in any development proposals. We also need to protect valued open space, which contributes to our green network locally. The envisaged growth can be achieved only if we secure support from the Government through infrastructure development. Furthermore, it is only fair that we have help in regenerating the older housing areas in Telford, which were built right at the start of the new town process. Specific targets for the creation of affordable housing should be clearly communicated to the community, and I intend to hold a housing summit in Telford to discuss those issues.
	One of the key components in any housing growth strategy must be schemes to tackle youth homelessness. Projects such as KIP and STAY do sterling work in Telford, but we need more supported accommodation for homeless people and more move-on capacity. I would like to see a high quality foyer project in Telford, offering young people and young adults accommodation, access to training and support in sustaining a tenancy. It could be a prestige building that forms part of our town centre redevelopment, and I hope that the partners involved in that strategy will take note of that point.
	We also need more supported housing for client groups. For older people, we need accommodation tailored to the needs of an ageing population—along the lines of the extra care model, for example. We also need more bungalow schemes to help people to move and free up family housing. That sits alongside our wider strategy for housing growth. I would also like to see our growth strategy take on board lifetime homes standards, and build them into the design of all local housing developments.
	Playing an active role in the city region will be crucial if Telford is to be successful. I hear some siren voices locally saying that we should not be involved in the city region process. I say to those people that if we exclude ourselves from the decision-making structures that will direct investment in training and skills, transport infrastructure and wider regeneration activity, we will relegate ourselves to being a bit-part player as the regional economy grows. If we are to succeed as a town in the future, we need to be a housing growth point and a jobs and skills growth point. Investment directed by the city region partnership can help us to secure that.
	What do we need from Government? We need a long-term partnership that promotes employment growth alongside housing growth as a key element of the city region strategy. We need ongoing support for the regeneration of areas of older housing, building on the Woodside initiative in south Telford, which I have already mentioned. We need help to deliver sustainable communities through the deployment of the skills of English Partnerships, the Housing Corporation and Advantage West Midlands. We need support to create a vibrant town centre and to rebuild and regenerate our local centres to service a growing population. If the Government can give us that wide-ranging support, we can not only help to meet the housing growth targets that flow out from the Barker report, both on a national and regional level, we can continue to transform Telford into the kind of place that I am proud to live in and represent, and the kind of place that Telford people richly deserve to live in.

Meg Munn: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) on securing the debate. Housing is an important issue in all areas. It is a particular pleasure to be taking part in the debate, because he is not just an expert on Telford, which one would obviously expect, but he has a long history of working in the field of housing. He is representing his constituents' needs in relation to housing very well. As he is aware, the Government are determined to see an increase in the provision of good quality housing in sustainable locations across the country. Before I explain a little more about the issues that relate to Telford as a new growth point, I will briefly go over some of the background.
	Telford has important economic connections with Birmingham and the black country and between 1991 and 2001 was the second fastest growing town in the country. As my hon. Friend said, it was originally planned as a new town covering 7,200 hectares. The intention was to use the large amount of despoiled and contaminated land created by the former extractive industries, integrating the market town of Wellington with a number of smaller settlements including Dawley, Ironbridge, Madeley and Oakengates. The focus for the town was the purpose-built central retail, administrative and commercial area that now serves as Telford town centre. The new town had a planned target population of 225,000 by 1991 and roads, infrastructure and industrial estates were built with that in mind. Telford currently accommodates just over 140,000 residents in 55,800 dwellings—a population that is about double the size that it was at its designation in the late 1960s. Despite not reaching the original target, since 1991 the population has still grown by 20,000. That is a rate of 13.8 per cent.—six times the national average. As he said, it is an area that is well used to dealing with significant population growth.
	The west midlands regional spatial strategy aims to halt the historic migration from the major urban areas to the surrounding shires. That is to be achieved by focusing investment and growth within the major urban areas. However, the strategy also recognises that there is a need to plan for growth arising in areas more remote from the major urban areas. It includes five "sub-regional foci", which will accommodate higher levels of future growth. Telford is one of them. As my hon. Friend is aware, the regional spatial strategy is currently being reviewed and the latest revisions to population projections are being considered. Those projections indicate that a 50 per cent. increase is needed in the amount of new housing provided throughout the region. As the major areas reach their capacity, the role of places such as Telford will become crucial for accommodating growth. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it is not just in that regard that Telford has a crucial role—it is a crucial part of the city region.
	Nationally, we must recognise the scale of the challenge of delivering sufficient and affordable housing for the next generation. Although low mortgage rates have helped more than 1 million extra families into home ownership since 1997, rising prices mean that many people are struggling to get on the housing ladder. As Kate Barker made it clear in her report of two years ago—my hon. Friend referred to this—we have not been building enough homes for a generation. That is true in Telford, where housing completions recently have not met targets.
	Since the introduction of the sustainable communities plan, new house building has started to increase. In 2005, it hit its highest rate since 1990, with a total of 168,000 new homes being built. That was a major increase from 131,000 homes in 2001, but we need even more. Happily, we are all living longer, and more people are living alone—I do not know whether that is happily or unhappily. The demographic changes that we are experiencing mean that there is growing demand for housing.
	As part of the sustainable communities plan, major growth areas were identified in the south-east of the country. Those areas are benefiting from substantial investment and the realignment of resources to address the need for more housing. However, we are aware that more housing is needed outside the south-east, and, as my hon. Friend said, we announced 29 new growth points in October 2006. If all the proposed growth is realised, the new growth points will contribute about 425,000 dwellings by 2016, which will be an increase of 100,000, or 32 per cent., on previous plans for those areas. That would represent a major contribution towards the objective of delivering 200,000 dwellings a year by 2016. We have allocated start-up funding of around £40 million for 2007-08 throughout the new growth points to support capacity building, early site infrastructure projects and essential growth-related studies into such matters as flood risk and water supply.
	I am pleased to say that Telford is one of the new growth points. The town's leaders have considered the potential for growth and are committed to building 13,000 new homes by 2016 and 25,000 by 2026. For our part, we will be supporting the authority on studies in 2007-08. In later years, we hope to have funds available to support facilitative infrastructure works.
	As my hon. Friend suggested, Telford has a good history of delivering substantial numbers of new homes. Between 1995 and 2005, the average building rate was 800 homes a year, while the highs exceeded 1,000 a year. There is strong demand for new homes because of a high indigenous population increase that is due to the relatively young population—obviously, I include my hon. Friend as part of that. Recently, lower completion rates of about 600 resulted in a tight demand-supply situation, which led, in the past two years, to net migration out of Telford. Additional housing growth is thus desirable to support the development of a sustainable community.
	The low completion rates have largely resulted from the need to redesign and re-plan many of the strategic sites owned by English Partnerships. Many of those sites did not benefit from the latest thinking on urban design, and they have been reviewed to create more sustainable and accessible forms of development at higher densities. The redesign process is contributing to significant additional capacity in Telford, thus enabling maximum use to be made of the excellent infrastructure that is largely in place. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that we learn from what makes sustainable communities as we develop those additional homes.
	It is intended that the additional growth of about 5,900 homes will be achieved by focusing on sites in Telford's central east-west corridor, which is well served by road, rail and public transport. The corridor runs through Telford town centre and includes several sites that are owned by English Partnerships.
	The corridor will bind together the new communities at Lawley, Ketley and Lightmoor with the older communities of Dawley and Oakengates, which will also benefit from the new facilities and opportunities that the remediation and regeneration will provide. The council considers that the corridor offers the most substantial opportunity to create sustainable communities and is potentially capable of delivering significantly greater levels of development over the longer term. My hon. Friend described how, in Lawley and Lightmoor, sustainability will be achieved.
	I shall deal in a little more detail, as my hon. Friend requested, with the new growth point status. We invited local partners to put together new growth point proposals based on their understanding and assessment of local housing need and opportunities that they face, including national and international migration, as well as population growth, household formation rates and changing economic roles in relation to the rest of their region. New growth point status means that Government and local partners agree the potential for growth and are committed to working together to ensure that the growth will be sustainable and can be supported with affordable, realistic and sustainable infrastructure.
	Additional infrastructure will be needed to provide for growth. The Government have recognised that in their response to the Barker review and has established the Treasury policy review supporting housing growth to ensure that departmental resources across Government are targeted appropriately. That will feed into the comprehensive spending review, due to report this summer. New growth point status means more than access to funding streams, however. It means more direct access to dialogue with Government about all aspects affecting the delivery of locally driven sustainable growth ambitions. New growth points have already begun to develop constructive relationships with the Environment Agency, the Highways Agency and Natural England in particular. We expect these to go from strength to strength. We are also encouraging direct dialogue with the utility companies to ensure that their own planning is aligned with the anticipated phasing of growth.
	In conclusion, I am pleased to say that the town's leaders are committed to further sustainable growth. A number of exciting projects are being implemented. I am sure that my hon. Friend will want us to continue the constructive relationships that have been established. The Government are committed to supporting the council in delivering its aspirations. We all want to see sustainable communities, and we want Telford to continue to be a growing and thriving place to live.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.